Law

The EPA is formulating a rule that will expand the types of 'credible evidence' that can prove Clean Air Act violations

Article Abstract:

The EPA is developing a rule which would expand the kinds of evidence to show Clean Air Act violations. The final version of the rule is expected by Sept 1996. The proposed rule would do away with the requirement that non-compliance with a CFR 'reference test' be the only evidence of an air quality violation. The proposed 'credible evidence' rule provides that a plaintiff can use routine monitoring, engineering calculations, emissions trading data opacity tests or any other credible evidence to show violations of permits, the Clean Air Act or of state implementation plans. There is a concern that numbers of citizen suits will jump which the EPA has sought to modify with assurances of common sense.

The Contract with America's proposed moratorium on rule-making would open up a Pandora's box of issues for litigation

Article Abstract:

The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act in the House Republicans' Contract With America and as passed in HRs 450, 925, and 1022 promises increased litigation. Some of the terms used in the Regulatory Transition Act and the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, two of the three bills in which the measure passed, are not defined. What constitutes a private right of action or an 'imminent threat to health or safety' is open to interpretation. A second article will consider the third bill's implications.

Occupational health and safety, Occupational safety and health, Political aspects, Administrative procedure, Right of action

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

Public Comment:&nbsp (50-4000 characters)

Name:

E-mail:

Type the code shown:

Show my email publicly:

A majority of courts limit parties held liable under CERCLA to contribution actions by denying them cost recovery actions

Article Abstract:

A contentious CERCLA issue is whether a liable party can file a Sec. 107 cost recovery action against another party liable at a site or must be contented with a Sec. 113 contribution claim. Only the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has allowed both kinds of actions, while the other circuits and district courts within those circuits are divided. The burdens of proof in the two actions are different and courts will ultimately use equitable factors to decide.